Sadly, I’ve been completely oblivious to the Boycott Elsevier petition circulating throughout the blogosphere. The more I read about it, the more sense it makes. They charge an exorbitant amount of money to access research journals, but don’t pay the researchers. It’s academic slavery. Thanks to Brian Romans (@clasticdetritus) for providing the link.
Originally posted on Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week:
Aaargh! I’ve had it up to here with this. I just read it yet again, this time in a letter to the editor of the New York Times in response to Michael Eisen’s recent piece in that paper on the RWA. The letter says some good things, but then right in the middle we have this:
Mr. Eisen understates the value added to medical research articles by journals such as ours. Peer review is invaluable in selecting the highest impact medical research and improving its quality before publication.
This is just one more example of a pernicious and persistent assumption. In the same vein, the AAP’s statement on the Research Works Act mentions peer-review five times in its first four paragraphs despite the fact that the RWA has nothing to do with peer review. So for example: